The Calvinism-Fatalism Parallel, or why the

‘Logical End’ conclusion is a fallacy

Lately, I've been following a couple of comment threads on some blogs of which the
titles caught my interest (comment threads here, and here. The two I have mainly been
reading.)

It seems that in both these threads the main argumentation against Reformed Theology
(or Calvinism, if you prefer) goes something like this: "Calvinism, when carried to its
logical conclusion, is nothing but Fatalism."

This argument can really be labeled as nothing more than an ab absurdo argument (the
idea that the position taken is wrong because it seems absurd). But make no mistake,
Arminians are not the only ones who use this argument. I have read plenty of Calvinists
who argue from the same position—that Arminianism is wrong because "Arminianism,
when carried to its logical conclusion, is nothing but Open Theism."

So you see, both sides can use this so-called logic to disprove each others theological
positions—and both sides would still be wrong! With that in mind, I will attempt to prove
the fallacy of this kind of argumentation, mainly from the Reformed view. I will then use
the same argument to "disprove" Arminianism (yeah, I know I just said you can't use that
kind of argumentation). Then I will summarize the correct way for substantiating or
invalidating ones theology. Stick with me on this one and I'm sure you will find it
interesting.

Note: No doubt, I will ultimately be accused of defending Calvinism. However, the main
point of this post is not a defense but an encouragement for those on both sides to come
up with a better argument than the one currently being tossed around as "proof" for
wrong Biblical thinking. I hope to do a post at a later time to correct some common
misconceptions about Reformed Theology.

There are three main reasons why the Logical Conclusion End holds no real validity:

* First, the Bible doesn't teach Fatalism so it should not be assumed (logically) that a
person believes such, nor should it be assumed that this will be the outcome of their
belief. Using logic is still a valid tool, mind you. But we should be careful how we
attribute it to Biblical interpretation.

* Second, Both sides have their extremes. Let's look at the whole picture and stop
pretending that our theologies are wrapped up nice and neat with a little red bow on top.

* Third, Scripture should be the final authority in determining which theological

conclusions stand or fall.
The Bible Doesn't Teach Fatalism

There will be two main points to this section: (1) Scripture affirms God's purpose and
decrees, and (2) Christians affirm God's purpose and decrees in prayer/speech.

Scripture declares God's purpose and decrees

Before beginning this portion of argument it would be helpful to define Fatalism. It is

defined by the Online Webster Dictionary as follows:

fatalism - a philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance
for all time and human beings are powerless to change them

Immediately, one would jump to the conclusion of the Calvinistic belief of God's eternal
decree and state, "Yep, sure sounds like Calvinism to me." But Fatalism goes well
beyond God's decree and basically states, "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" In other
words, things happen out of random chance rather than a determined purpose. the
Biblical view of God's decree is that everything that He does, He does for a purpose,
whereas Fatalism states that men do what they do and have no choice because it has been
determined.

Compare the above definition to the Westminster Confession of faith concerning God's
eternal purposes and decrees:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely,
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the
author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Thus, Reformed Theology states that "Neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes
taken away, but rather established". In other words, man is still responsible and free to
choose right and wrong, not simply because his actions have been "determined." But God
does have a purpose, even in man's rebellion and so we must still let Scripture guide us as
to His all-wise decrees.

(Isa 49:9-11) Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I
am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from
ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish
all my purpose. calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far
country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

(Ps 148:5-6) Let them praise the name of the LORD! For He commanded and they were
created. And He established them forever and ever; He gave a decree, and it shall not
pass away.

(Pro 19:21) Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD
that will stand.

(Pro 16:33) The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

(Ex 9:16) But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my
name may be proclaimed in all the earth.

So we can see clearly from Scripture that God has a purpose in bringing events to pass.
Fatalism, on the other hand is very different in nature. It concludes that there is no
purpose for things that happen. In Fatalism all of the good, the bad, and the ugly are just
there, just "life." But Christianity states that these things to do not come about as
accident. God has a reason (though we may not know why) for everything, including evil.
Thus, to summarize the passages above we see in those passages God's purpose clearly
being the grounds for which these things come about, namely praise, man's plans, the
destruction of Pharaoh, and even the so-called "random" acts of casting lots to determine
which course one should go in.

Everything God does is done for the purpose of His good pleasure, and most Christians,
rather they are Reformed or not would heartily and readily agree with this statement. If
this be the case, should Reformed folk continue to be accused of believing in a fatalistic
God?

Christians affirm God's decrees in prayer/speech

While Reformed Christians heavily stress the importance of God's decrees, even when
evil happens, it seems that non-Reformed believers focus more on His decrees when
circumstances become more personal (i.e, a loved one becomes sick or dies, or other
personal tragedies). They then seek comfort in knowing that God has a purpose for this
particular trial or event in their lives and by so doing they themselves acknowledge these
decrees. But what about everyday life when bad things don't happen? I would dare say
that many believers who do not hold to Reformed Theology are, in actuality,
unintentional Calvinists.

Consider for example, how one might say, "If it is God's will I shall. . ." What is meant
by this kind of talk except that he believes that God may have something different in
mind for him than what he himself has planned? It is merely the reality of Proverbs 19:21
played out in the life of believer. And what about how we pray? "Accomplish Your will
in such and such." Again, we are recognizing God's supreme authority to have His
purpose carried out. And the most curious one is the prayer that is usually offered for the
salvation of a loved one: "Lord, please break his heart and bring him to repentance. Do
whatever it may take to cause him to call upon your name for salvation." What, in
essence is being asked for, is for God to intervene by changing his will and emotions or
bringing about some circumstance of extremeness in order to cause the person to begin to
seek God.

In both the examples above, God's purposes, intentions, and eternal decrees are
recognized. And unless one is ready to deny the supreme rule and decisions of God while
they themselves affirm them (knowingly or not) the 'Fatalism' logic must be put to rest.

Consider also, the great care that most believers take in determining God's will. They will
pray, fast, and essentially refuse to move on an issue of great importance until they are
certain that God's will is the guiding light behind what they are about to do. Again, if the
Reformed idea of God's eternal decree is to be rejected upon the grounds of Fatalism,
why pray and act in this way? When one does, he acknowledges that his will may not be
the same as God's will; and if his will is not the same as God's will it is an
acknowledgment that God may have had a different purpose (or decree) for him the entire
time. This must be the case, for the only other option is to carelessly do whatever he
wishes only to find in the end that his plans, and not God's, have been frustrated.

Both Sides Have Their Extremes

Extremes abound in all forms of theology. A careful recognition of this should guide the
person's argument against any theological issue straight to the text in question rather than
immediately jumping to the end conclusion. This is the exact reason for my writing this
post. It seems that most would rather "assume" how a person's theological convictions
could, but not necessarily lead to an extreme, rather than a careful study of certain
passages that have been offered as proof of these convictions. As Christians, we need to
stop dancing around these key passages and deal honestly and integrally with the text.
Instead of forcing our own conclusions on Scripture, let us use careful exegesis and
examine closely what the Biblical writer's intentions are for the disputed passages at
hand.

For this reason, I would like to use the assumed conclusion argument to disprove the
theology of Arminianism. This will not be a long, drawn out argument but simply a list of
"logical" reasons why Arminianism is a false theological system. By doing so, I hope to
establish that believers can no longer afford to use this type of logic to assume the
fallacies of a theological position, but rather a system that is rooted in a careful study and
exegesis of the Scripture should be the plumb line used in determining our theology.

Arminianism, when carried to it's logical conclusion, is Open Theism.

A. Man's freedom to choose right and wrong

Man is a completely free moral agent. He must determine the course his life will take. We
know that God does not violate man's free will by "forcing" Himself upon him. He allows
man to make his own decisions and act upon those decisions without interference. When
man acts contrary to the Word of God the usual consequences ensue. But when he acts in
line with the Word of God it is reasonable to assume that God's blessing will be upon
him. This explains why there is sin and evil in the world. However, it does not quite
explain why God doesn't intervene all the time. Certainly there are times when He does,
but why not all the time?

B. Evil in the world

Can one really deny that evil abounds in this world? Not really. Evil has been a problem
since the fall of Adam. This presents a huge problem for the Christian. If there really is a
God, and He is good, as we boast, then why does evil seem to triumph? We know and
understand that God is not the author of evil. He does not will it to happen, nor does He
Himself force anyone to sin or be evil. Yet sadistic people live in our societies and
commit evil atrocities everyday: a young child is snatched away from parents and
brutally abused and murdered; a woman is robbed of her purity because some man could
not control his lusts; money is stolen because people are greedy and would rather take
than work for what they desire. The list goes on and on but the answers to these
predicaments seem far and few between. The only logical conclusion can be that (1) God
has a purpose for evil abounding and will ultimately use it for His glory, or (2) God's
knowledge is somewhat limited and He is not completely and able to control evil.

C. The logical conclusion to the evil problem: Open Theism

I think it is rather ridiculous to say or admit that God has a "purpose" for evil. Sure, the
Bible teaches that God arranges or works out these things to His advantage, but does that
really mean that there is a purpose. That can't be right. It is contrary to everything I have
ever heard about the nature and character of God. Since He certainly doesn't cause evil to
happen, and He most certainly would never cause men to sin, the only logical thing left to
assume is that God just doesn't know everything that's going to happen. The things He
knows about are the things that He intervenes upon and changes the circumstances of
those situations. But those things that do happen that are evil must be the things that He
was not aware that were going to happen. This is the only real explanation of why evil
abounds so prevalently in our lives.

The above logic has not been completely fleshed out. It was not my intention to do so. I
only wanted to show the fallacy behind the kind of logic that abounds when we
essentially use the same kind of reasoning to disprove a person's theology. But alas, do
not be discouraged for there is a way to to determine whether our beliefs stand or fall.
Scripture is the Determining Factor

As stated previously, a careful study of the Scriptural passages in question should

ALWAYS be the final arbiter of any given theological conviction. I think all Christians
would readily agree with this statement so there is really no need to launch into a long-
winded homily of why this is true. I would, however, like to list a few steps in the study
of a passage that may help guide in the final interpretation of any given conclusion.

1. Consider the entirety of the book: audience, why it was written, cultural context, and
circumstances under which it was written. This can give great insight into the means of
the book in the first place.

2. Consider the immdediate context of the passage. Don't just take a few words or
sentences and build an entire theology on those few words. There is lots to consider
within that context:

* Word/phrase meanings

* Uses of the words elswhere

* Time and voice aspects of key verbs

* Syntactical and grammatical nuances

3. Do word studies of the key words in the text. What do the words actually convey? Is
the author being literal or figurative in his speech? Word studies can often lead a person
to a clearer understanding of the message that was being conveyed to the original
audience. A basic working knowledge of the original languages is an invaluable aid. With
the advancement of technology there should be no excuses why a person cannot obtain a
grammar and learn the languages himself/herself. At the very least, make sure you invest
in some good lexical aids. There are plenty of free ones out there on the Internet.

4. Check commentaries from both sides of the debated position. I have a good
collection of commentaries from both Arminian and Reformed positions and I use them
both. Checking to see how each interprets a passage can give you a glimpse into how
detailed the commentator actually studied it. Was there much usage of the original
languages? or did they simply "gloss" over key words and phrases to allow their own
understanding of the passage to prevail? Of course, we should be careful that we or the
commentator has not read anything more into the passage than what is has actually been
said.

5. Finally, determine the meaning of the passage ONLY after using all of the above
means. Let me be clear in saying that a private interpretation outside the norm is just as
bad and heretical as eisegesis. When a particular passage has been interpreted a certain
way for hundreds of years by those who have mastered the languages, should we assume
their conclusions wrong simply because we disagree with them? I certainly hope not! Let
us all be careful in the conclusions that we arrive at.
The above is certainly no exhaustive means for studying Scripture, just a few steps that
should be considered when approaching a text. Since all believers are called to
understand God (not in the fullest sense) and convey to the lost world that message, we
should then be most ready to go much further than "the logical conclusion" and be honest
enough with ourselves to give a fair and Biblical scrutiny to ANY Christian theology.

Affirming the 5 Solas of the Reformation,

Steven